I hate to be the one to rain on the S&L parade, but I found the book, though vastly superior to the Hinton thing, still overly reliant on secondary sources. Whoever writes something closer to the "definitive" biographer will have greater access to primary sources.
IMO, a good biography is not just a narrative of life events, but a thesis about the person being portrayed. I don't see that this book has an answer for the question "Who is Joni Mitchell?" At least, not an interesting answer (not to me). Also, there are a lot of maddening information gaps, particularly in the area of Joni's romantic relationships. Do we agree that this topic is appropriate for inclusion in a biography? I would think so - it's considered fair game for everybody else, from Emily Dickinson to Thomas Jefferson. The book raises intriguing questions and then drops them. When she includes a statement by David Crosby to the effect that it's impossible to stay in a relationship with Joni, that issue ought to be explored! When we look at a statement by Jackson Browne that Joni has been carrying a torch for twenty years, that question needs to be explored also. But the book drops the ball. Sorry to be so critical. She obviously respects Joni and seems to understand her work. I don't think it's a "bad" book, just kind of pedestrian. Paul Castle wrote: > Whilst I appreciate that the word 'definitive' is subjective, > Karen's bio, IMO, seems to fit one of my dictionary > (Collins) definitions - ie "Most reliable or authoritative". > > Whatever, for me, one of the most pleasing things about > the success of this publication is that it appears to be > redefining Joni's significance, in the UK media, at least. ----------------------------------- Deb Messling =^..^= -----------------------------------
